MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Targeted gene analysis in <i>Ulmus americana</i> and <i>U. pumila </i>tissues

2008· article· en· W2080523179 on OpenAlexaff
C. Nasmith, R. S. Jeng, M. Hubbes

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Pathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCallusDutch elm diseaseChitinaseBark (sound)Gene expressionGeneUlmus pumilaMolecular biologyComplementary DNABotanyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Steady‐state gene expression was compared between Dutch elm disease (DED)‐susceptible Ulmus americana and DED‐resistant U. pumila callus, leaf midrib, root and inner bark tissues. Stress‐related cDNAs including phenylalanine ammonia‐lyase (PAL), chitinase (CHT) and polygalacturonase‐inhibiting protein (PGIP) were isolated and compared following RT‐PCR of elm tissues. Complete CHT and partial PAL and PGIP cDNA transcripts were identified, each displaying sequence variation between elm species. These transcripts were Dig‐labelled and subsequently used for northern analyses of the elm tissues. Midrib and root tissue displayed highest steady‐state gene expression compared with inner bark and callus tissues. A modified nucleic acid isolation technique was necessary for downstream RNA analyses. Lithium chloride and polyvinylpyrrolidone were critical for efficient removal of polysaccharides and phenolics associated with some of the elm tissues. Steady‐state gene expression is discussed in relation to the tissues investigated. The use of tissues other than in vitro callus culture more closely represents the tissues associated with the elm’s vascular response to DED.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest PathologySame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207